Its every man for himself in this world

The sage advice my father gave amounted to "if your going to fight, fight to win". I've managed to avoid physical fighting.


You described your father as very trusting. I doubt you would be able to know now what was going on in his life at the time he said, every man for himself. The advice obviously had an effect on you enough to start a thread about it. My life experiences don't have me believing it's every man for himself. Sure disappointment in someone or something happened but that doesn't mean the entire human race amounts to "every man for himself"


Think


Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela


Do you think the entire human race falls into the catagory of "every man for himself"?
 
Not soft though

Knight said:
The sage advice my father gave amounted to "if your going to fight, fight to win". I've managed to avoid physical fighting.

You described your father as very trusting. I doubt you would be able to know now what was going on in his life at the time he said, every man for himself. The advice obviously had an effect on you enough to start a thread about it. My life experiences don't have me believing it's every man for himself. Sure disappointment in someone or something happened but that doesn't mean the entire human race amounts to "every man for himself"

Think Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela

Do you think the entire human race falls into the catagory of "every man for himself"?
Click to expand...


I think I may have exaggerated how trusting my father was, because he certainly wasn't soft or easily taken advantage of (at least until very much later in life perhaps).

I've admitted frequently on this thread that there are many contradictions connected with the OP statement, not least in the way my father behaved. I think he'd have agreed with your father's advice too, and as boys my father and three brothers used to enjoy a little boxing amongst the local lads. However, like yourself I've managed to avoid physical fighting in my life.

I don't think its possible to completely tie down why my father gave us the advice he did, though he had a very close relationship with his father I believe so it may have come from him, and got passed down the generations even further back perhaps.
 

Knight said:
.......My life experiences don't have me believing it's every man for himself. Sure disappointment in someone or something happened but that doesn't mean the entire human race amounts to "every man for himself"........Do you think the entire human race falls into the catagory of "every man for himself"?
Click to expand...

Not 'entire', but my experience has been that in 'emergency' situations, there are a handful of people who will run into a bad situation, but the majority will run for their lives and don't care who they trample in the process. I also believe that is the case in a broader meaning.
 
I suppose there's some among us that put themselves before anyone else, regardless of the situation. If they do "so-be-it"! if they feel no remorse for overpowering those folks that are weaker than they, that's their choice. It takes all kinds to make up our society. It's left for us to choose those we wish to emulate and those we despise.

Personally, I think that life is made up of a never-ending series of choices that we encounter every day, some small, some large. I like to think that I consider how other people around me will be affected by my choice. Life isn't "all about me" nor do I think that it should be.
 
Knight said:
The sage advice my father gave amounted to "if your going to fight, fight to win". I've managed to avoid physical fighting.
Click to expand...

:lol: This reminds me of another of my father's sayings.

I had no brothers and if Dad and I were mock fighting and I had my fists raised, he would look me in the eye and say, "Make your first one a good one, because it will be your last."

I internalised this to mean that should I ever be in a desperate situation and under attack, I should not hold back but do my best to disable my attacker. Thankfully, I have never needed to do so.

Going back to the OP, I had some idea that the "every man for himself" might have a military origin and refer to a time of inglorious retreat or rout but it seems not. This is what I found:

The phrase “every man for himself” is used when people are trying to save themselves without consideration for others. It is a fragment of a larger medieval proverb from England. Dating from around the 16th century, the proverb, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), said that it was “Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.”

This term has come to be used in situations where there is danger, but also hope of salvation. It comes with a notion that helping other people will lead to everyone, or at least the individual, also being caught. The idea can be applied to criminals trying to escape the police, after, for example, a bank robbery. By invoking the idea, the fleeing individuals hope that someone else will be caught and they will survive. In this sense, it is akin to the joke where a person does not need to outrun a bear in the woods, he only needs to outrun his friends.
Click to expand...
 
You may have got it there

Warrigal said:
I had no brothers and if Dad and I were mock fighting and I had my fists raised, he would look me in the eye and say, "Make your first one a good one, because it will be your last."

I internalised this to mean that should I ever be in a desperate situation and under attack, I should not hold back but do my best to disable my attacker. Thankfully, I have never needed to do so.

Going back to the OP, I had some idea that the "every man for himself" might have a military origin and refer to a time of inglorious retreat or rout but it seems not. This is what I found:
"The phrase “every man for himself” is used when people are trying to save themselves without consideration for others. It is a fragment of a larger medieval proverb from England. Dating from around the 16th century, the proverb, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), said that it was “Every man for himself and the Devil take the hindmost.”

This term has come to be used in situations where there is danger, but also hope of salvation. It comes with a notion that helping other people will lead to everyone, or at least the individual, also being caught. The idea can be applied to criminals trying to escape the police, after, for example, a bank robbery. By invoking the idea, the fleeing individuals hope that someone else will be caught and they will survive. In this sense, it is akin to the joke where a person does not need to outrun a bear in the woods, he only needs to outrun his friends."
Click to expand...

I think you may have got the meaning my father intended there, and as my father was a young man during WWII and there was an appreciation of the threat or dangers people faced then wasn't there.
 
Herd instinct

DaveA said:
I suppose there's some among us that put themselves before anyone else, regardless of the situation. If they do "so-be-it"! if they feel no remorse for overpowering those folks that are weaker than they, that's their choice. It takes all kinds to make up our society. It's left for us to choose those we wish to emulate and those we despise.

Personally, I think that life is made up of a never-ending series of choices that we encounter every day, some small, some large. I like to think that I consider how other people around me will be affected by my choice. Life isn't "all about me" nor do I think that it should be.
Click to expand...


Does "herd instinct" play any part in the way most people behave and perhaps is connected to the OP somehow?

In nature a herd of wildebeests under attack are protected by being in a large group from predators but at the same time when a weaker animal has been picked out, then the remainder are safer because they are probably no longer under threat. I admit my analogy has some short comings as we're not so likely to be predated by big cats these days, but the formation of groups, for whatever reason, is a characteristic of human beings isn't it.
 
Herd instinct does not apply to humans. We are more predators than prey and like our cousins the chimpanzees we hunt co-operatively, not competitively. But we are more than hunters. We began as gatherers too, another co-operative activity, as is agriculture that developed later.

Our instinctual drives are still there but have been tamed by our intellect.
 
Psychologist have a different view

Warrigal said:
Herd instinct does not apply to humans. We are more predators than prey and like our cousins the chimpanzees we hunt co-operatively, not competitively. But we are more than hunters. We began as gatherers too, another co-operative activity, as is agriculture that developed later.

Our instinctual drives are still there but have been tamed by our intellect.
Click to expand...

I may have caught you out here (though totally accidentally), quote:

"In human societies, herding often involves people using the actions of others as a guide to sensible behaviour, instead of independently seeking out high-quality information about the likely outcomes of these actions. Herding can be particularly destructive in market contexts, because blind faith in market trends by a swarm of individuals can lead to huge bubbles and devastating crashes. But if herding can lead to outcomes that are so damaging and maladaptive at the level of the society, then why did it evolve in the first place? Because herding evolved to benefit individuals, not groups or societies."

~https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201306/human-herding-how-people-are-guppies
 
[h=1]Its every man for himself in this world[/h]As far back in the evolution of man, we can piece together from scraps of tombs, which are many thousands and thousands of years ago. We have proof that we always cared for our sick and injured. I'm 71, and wear an obvious knee brace and strapped into a back brace. People are constantly helping me. Sometimes, I want to shout, "I can do it myself". I have to let them help me, it's their human nature. They have to help me, I suppose if we were in a collapse mining tunnel gasping for the last breath of "good" air; or if greed tainted their nature, it would be every man to himself.
 
grahamg said:
I may have caught you out here (though totally accidentally), quote:

"In human societies, herding often involves people using the actions of others as a guide to sensible behaviour, instead of independently seeking out high-quality information about the likely outcomes of these actions. Herding can be particularly destructive in market contexts, because blind faith in market trends by a swarm of individuals can lead to huge bubbles and devastating crashes. But if herding can lead to outcomes that are so damaging and maladaptive at the level of the society, then why did it evolve in the first place? Because herding evolved to benefit individuals, not groups or societies."

~https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201306/human-herding-how-people-are-guppies
Click to expand...

You could be referring to the current phenomenon of the bitcoin and other market fads of the past such as tulips and dot com ventures. Some people do seem to follow the herd in these situations.
 
Knight said:
The sage advice my father gave amounted to "if your going to fight, fight to win". I've managed to avoid physical fighting.


You described your father as very trusting. I doubt you would be able to know now what was going on in his life at the time he said, every man for himself. The advice obviously had an effect on you enough to start a thread about it. My life experiences don't have me believing it's every man for himself. Sure disappointment in someone or something happened but that doesn't mean the entire human race amounts to "every man for himself"


Think


Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela


Do you think the entire human race falls into the catagory of "every man for himself"?
Click to expand...

Those two are exceptions.
 
Heroism

Camper6 said:
Knight wrote:
".........Sure disappointment in someone or something happened but that doesn't mean the entire human race amounts to "every man for himself"

Think

Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela"

Camper6 wrote:

"Those two are exceptions."
Click to expand...


There are more exceptions of course, (I'm sure you'll agree), for example in warfare when someone acts heroically.

In retreat through Belgium at the start of WWII, one British soldier is said to have taken up a snipers position on top of a bus shelter in order to prevent the advancing forces capturing or killing his fellow troops. The locals are said to have kept the bus shelter as a memorial to his heroism, and no doubt there are many other such examples where someone decides to put others ahead of their own selfish interests, or natural desire to survive.
 
I don't think it is such bad teachings for little ones growing up, that are totally reliant on parents, or other adults. I would hope to say it in such a way that teaches one to do things for themselves though, not to be a loner, so to speak, or dog eat dog.

If someone learns to take care of themselves, then they have something to give to others. If you grow up thinking that the world is going to take care of you, that's foolish. It can be a rude awakening to think the "fairytales" are truth in real life.
 
Knight said:
The sage advice my father gave amounted to "if your going to fight, fight to win". I've managed to avoid physical fighting.


You described your father as very trusting. I doubt you would be able to know now what was going on in his life at the time he said, every man for himself. The advice obviously had an effect on you enough to start a thread about it. My life experiences don't have me believing it's every man for himself. Sure disappointment in someone or something happened but that doesn't mean the entire human race amounts to "every man for himself"


Think


Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela


Do you think the entire human race falls into the catagory of "every man for himself"?
Click to expand...

I don't know the numbers, but I do believe that man/woman, are mostly self'ish. I knew an elderly man, about 80 when I was 30. He cracked me up a lot but one thing he used to say was "I may not be much, but I am the only thing I think about". Now he was NOT a selfish guy, that I could see, but I think his point was, that no matter what humans do in this world, I still believe "self" always comes into play.

Mother Teresa had a need, want or desire to help others. So it was about her need, want or desire that she did those things. I hope that come across like I mean it. In that way, thinking about ourselves, and what it is "we" want in our lives isn't always a bad thing. But it is about self.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top